Archive for category: Corporate Governance in Benefits

You are here: / Corporate Governance in Benefits

One Too Many … Employer Considerations Following New Lawsuit Challenging Employer Providing Health Plan Options

/in , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

A recently filed lawsuit against Northwestern University and its health plan fiduciaries raises novel claims that could be problematic for employers that offer multiple medical benefit options, if the suit gains traction. The lawsuit alleges that the plan’s fiduciaries violated ERISA and breached their fiduciary duties by offering employees a medical plan option that provided insufficient value compared to an alternative option offered to employees. The plaintiffs allege that the “premium” plan option—which charges higher premiums in exchange for lower deductibles and cost sharing—is financially dominated by the “value” plan option because the lower cost sharing does not sufficiently outweigh the higher premium. This lawsuit is still in the early stages, and the court has yet to rule on whether the plaintiffs have plausibly stated a claim, let alone consider the merits of the allegations. Read more

I Might Be In Oklahoma But I’m Not OK … Fiduciary Considerations Following Executive Order Allowing Private Equity in 401(k)s

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Last week the White House issued an executive order directing the Department of Labor (DOL) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to facilitate 401(k) participants’ access to alternative investments, including private equity, cryptocurrency, real estate, commodities, and infrastructure financing. This direction includes the DOL reexamining guidance regarding fiduciary duties with respect to asset allocation funds, clarifying the DOL’s position regarding alternative assets and including them in asset allocation funds, and proposing related regulations and guidance. Read more

How Do You Like Me Now… Plan Fiduciary Considerations Following New DOL Crypto Guidance

/in , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Department of Labor recently issued Compliance Assistance Release No. 2025-01 rescinding Compliance Assistance Release No. 2022-01 that directed 401(k) plan fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” before adding cryptocurrency as a plan investment option. While the DOL’s recent guidance rescinds its 2022 guidance, it neither blesses cryptocurrency as an appropriate retirement plan investment option nor modifies ERISA’s fiduciary duties. Read more

No Shoes, No Shirt, No Problems… But Nonenforcement Policy Doesn’t Make Mental Health Parity Compliance Optional

/in , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (the “Departments”) recently announced a nonenforcement policy with respect to the 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) regulations or otherwise pursue enforcement actions based on a failure to comply, at least temporarily. The Departments appear to have taken this approach to be consistent with a pending lawsuit challenging the 2024 regulations. The Departments indicated the nonenforcement policy will apply until 18 months after the litigation has concluded. The Departments also indicated they will be reexamining the MHPAEA enforcement program more broadly. Read more

Truck on Fire … Supreme Court Relaxes ERISA Pleading Standards

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Supreme Court recently issued a decision regarding the pleading standards for ERISA prohibited transactions claims in a case involving Cornell’s 403(b) plan to resolve a federal circuit court split. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, plaintiffs will only need to allege that the plan engaged in a prohibited transaction. The plaintiffs will not need to also allege the absence of a prohibited transaction exemption.

The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences because most transactions a retirement plan enters into with a service provider—such as a recordkeeper, investment advisor, or investment manager—constitute prohibited transactions with a party-in-interest (for which a prohibited transaction exemption typically applies). Plaintiffs may now be able to file lawsuits containing prohibited transaction claims capable of surviving motions to dismiss even though the allegations are meritless or frivolous. For example, the transaction subject to a claim may clearly fit within a prohibited transaction exemption, such as making reasonable arrangements for services for a reasonable price. This could be the case even if the plaintiff’s related ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims that are part of the lawsuit are unable to survive a motion to dismiss. Read more

Every Little Thing … Employer Considerations as New 401(k) Lawsuit Includes Extensive Claims

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

A recently filed lawsuit related to Swiss Re’s 401(k) plan stands out because of the extensive assortment of allegations. These allegations against Swiss Re, its 401(k) plan fiduciaries, and the plan’s recordkeeper include:

  • the plan paid excessive recordkeeping fees;
  • the plan’s investment options, including its target date funds, underperformed;
  • some of the plan’s investment options offered lower cost share classes than the share class available in the plan;
  • the plan failed to utilize the assets in the forfeiture account;
  • the plan’s recordkeeper misused participant data to market its Roth IRAs to participants; and
  • the plan’s fiduciaries failed to monitor the recordkeeper’s misuse of participant data.

Read more

Smoke ‘Em One By One … Navigating the Wave of Tobacco Surcharge Lawsuits

/in , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Over the past several months, numerous large employers and their health plan fiduciaries have faced lawsuits regarding their health plan’s tobacco surcharge. A tobacco surcharge wellness program typically charges a higher monthly premium to employees and covered dependents who smoke or otherwise use tobacco products to account for some of the higher medical costs associated with tobacco use. Tobacco users can typically avoid the surcharge by completing a smoking cessation program, regardless of whether they actually quit.

This wave of putative class action lawsuits began earlier this year even though employer health plan tobacco surcharges have been around for years and the HIPAA regulations permitting the surcharges were last updated in 2013. Since then, numerous lawsuits challenging employer health plan tobacco surcharge programs have been filed. Courts have yet to rule on the recently filed lawsuits, with the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissing one of the lawsuits prior to the court ruling on the employer’s motion to dismiss. Read more

Heads California, Tails Carolina… Employer Considerations Following Wave of 401(k) Forfeiture Lawsuits

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Over the past year, numerous employers and their 401(k) plan fiduciaries have faced lawsuits regarding how forfeited employer contributions to their 401(k) plan are utilized.  This wave of lawsuits began approximately a year ago when a plaintiff’s law firm filed putative class action lawsuits raising this novel claim against multiple large employers, including Intuit, Clorox, and Thermo Fisher Scientific in California federal courts.  Since then, this claim has been included in numerous 401(k) plan lawsuits even though none of these lawsuits have reached a final judgment on the merits and only five have had decisions on motions to dismiss.

These lawsuits allege that the employer and its 401(k) plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), by using forfeited employer contributions to the 401(k) plan to offset future employer contributions instead of using the forfeited amounts to offset 401(k) plan expenses that were charged to participant accounts.  The plaintiff’s counsel alleges that the employer and 401(k) plan fiduciaries are violating ERISA’s fiduciary requirements to make decisions for the benefit of plan participant because the employer benefits from a reduction in its future employer contributions at the expense of plan participants who have to pay for certain expenses that are charged to their 401(k) accounts. Read more

Hole in the Bottle… Employer Considerations After Another Lawsuit Against an Employer Health Plan

/in , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Last week, former Wells Fargo employees filed a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo and its health plan fiduciaries alleging that Wells Fargo’s self-funded health plan violated ERISA by paying its pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) excessive administrative fees and excessive fees for prescription drugs. This lawsuit appears to be similar to a lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnson and its health plan fiduciaries earlier this year. Both lawsuits allege that the health plan paid its PBM exponentially more for certain prescription drugs than the price charged by certain retail pharmacies for the same drugs. Coincidentally, both lawsuits indicate the health plans are funded through a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) trust. See our prior blog post for more information on the heightened health plan fiduciary standards that may be driving these lawsuits. Read more

Should’ve Been a Cowboy, Court Inflicts Pain on Health Plan Sponsor After Participant Kicked by Bull

/in , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

A recent decision by a federal district court in Ohio in a health plan benefits dispute highlights the importance for health plan fiduciaries to properly review benefit claim denials to ensure that the claims administrator’s basis for denial is appropriate and that the claims administrator has properly considered information provided by the participant.

In this case, the participant sued after he was denied coverage for more than $100,000 of medical bills related to a broken ankle suffered when he was kicked by his bull calf. Even though the participant worked as an HVAC division manager, the health plan’s third-party administrator denied the claims based on the plan’s exclusion for on-the-job injuries because the participant owned a cattle farm from which he sold beef. The court ruled that the participant was entitled to coverage for his medical expenses because the health plan fiduciaries had the burden of demonstrating the plan exclusion applied. Read more